Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] arm64: dts: imx8mm-var-dart-sonata: Add OV5640 camera support

[Stefano Radaelli <stefano.radaelli21@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 03:20:51PM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 07:03:36PM +0200, Stefano Radaelli wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 01:33:47PM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 06:23:01PM +0200, Stefano Radaelli wrote:
> > > > From: Stefano Radaelli <stefano.r@variscite.com>
> > > >
> > > > Add support for the OV5640 camera connected to the Sonata carrier
> > > > board's first MIPI CSI port.
> > >
> > > Does this board only support ov5640 camera? Suppose ov5640 module also use
> > > for other boards.
> > >
> > > Can you refer https://lore.kernel.org/imx/20261011-expulsion-frivolous-690de090cf9d@spud/
> > > to define connectors?
> > >
> > > Frank
> > >
> >
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback! I looked at the Toradex approach you linked.
> >
> > In our case, the same connector can also accommodate Basler cameras and
> > potentially other camera modules in the future, while some of our other
> > carrier boards use different connectors.
> >
> > Given these differences, I would prefer to keep the classic approach proposed
> > in this patch, describing the camera directly in the carrier board DTS.
> > Do you think we should still use connector bindings in our case?
> > If so, how would you suggest handling these differences?
> 
> Need understand whole board familar, basic Two problem:
> 
>  	Does carrier board support difference kinds camera?
> 
> 	Does carrier board or camera module reused for other boards?
> 
> Frank
> 

Hi Frank,

Yes to both:

- The carrier board supports different cameras: we currently support
  OV5640 and Basler modules, and support for another camera is planned.
- The OV5640 module can be used on multiple carrier boards that share
  the same camera connector.
  Other carrier boards in our family use a different connector.

Given these combinations, would you consider reasonable keeping the
camera described directly in the carrier board DTS as proposed in this patch?
This would avoid adding complexity across the different configurations.

If you still recommend connector bindings, how would you suggest
structuring them to handle these differences?

Thank you so much for your help,
Best Regards,
Stefano